Chichen Itza, Mexico, 5 December 2010

CCS Latest Progress at the UNFCCC Negotiations

Dr. Hardiv H. Situmeang - Jakarta, 1 Januari 2011
 Outcome of the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on
Further Commitments for Annex I parties under the Kyoto
Protocol at Its Fifteenth Session
(Decision -/CMP.6)

Paragraph 4
Urges Annex I Parties to raise the level of ambition of the emission
reductions to be achieved by them individually or jointly, with a view
to reducing their aggregate level of emissions of greenhouse gases in
accordance with the range indicated by Working Group III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change AR4, and
taking into account the quantitative implications of the use of land
use, land-use change and forestry activities, emissions trading and the
project-based mechanisms and the carry-over of units from first to the
second commitment period;
 The Range of the Difference between Emissions in 1990 and
Emission Allowances in 2020/2050 for Various Concentration Levels
for Annex I And Non-Annex I Countries as a Groupa
Scenario Category Region 2020 2050
Annex I -25 % to – 40 % -80% to -95 %
Substantial deviation from Substantial deviation from baseline
A-450 ppm CO2-eqb
Non-Annex I baseline in Latin America, Middle in all regions
East, East Asia and Centrally-
Planned Asia
Annex I -10% to -30% -40% to -90%
B-550 ppm CO2-eq
Deviation from baseline in Latin Deviation from baseline in most
Non-Annex I America and Middle East, East regions, especially in Latin America
Asia and Middle East
Annex I 0% to -25% -30% to -80%
C-650 ppm CO2-eq
Non-Annex I Baseline Deviation from baseline in Latin
America and Middle East, East Asia

• Source: IPCC Working Group III, Chapter 13, Box 13.7, page 776.
• a) The aggregate range is based on multiple approaches to apportion emissions between regions (contraction &
convergence, multistage, Triptych and intensity targets, among others). Each approach makes different assumption
about the pathways, specific national efforts and other variables.Additional extreme cases – in which Annex I
undertakes all reductions, or non-Annex I undertakes all reductions – are not included. The range presented here
do not imply political feasibility, nor do the results reflect cost variance.
• b) Only the studies aiming at stabilization at 450 ppm CO2-eq assume a (temporary) overshoot of about 50 ppm
(See Den Elzen and Meinshausen, 2006).
Characteristic of Post - Third Assessment Report
Stabilization Scenarios
Largest Emitters: Developed & Developing
Emission Reduction Trade-off for Meeting Concentration Targets
(Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency)

Conclusions
• New allocation studies confirm the reductions in Box 13.7.
• For non-Annex I (NA1) countries as a group “substantial
deviation from baseline” is now specified: 15-30% for 450 ppm
CO2-eq, 0-20% for 550 ppm CO2-eq and from 10% above to 10%
below baseline for 650 ppm CO2-eq, in 2020. Roughly the frist
10% can be “no-regret options”
• If Annex I countries as a group reduces with 30% below 1990
level, non-Annex I need to reduce about 10-25% below baseline
for meeting 450 ppm CO2-equivalent
• For baseline that assume ongoing rapid growth in non-Annex I
emissions (higher than IPCC SRES range), the reductions will be
higher.
• Avoiding deforestation relaxes the reductions for Annex I and
non-Annex I

• Michel den Elzen (Contributing Author IPCC WG III AR4

• Niklas Hohne (Lead Author IPCC WG III AR4)
 NATIONALLY APPROPRIATE MITIGATION
ACTIONS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
[ Its Categories ]

Category Interpretation

1. Unilateral NAMAs Undertaken by Developing Country Parties by their own:

voluntarily, self financing.
Supported by direct finance from Developed Country
2. Supported NAMAs Parties. This agreed emission reductions cannot be used
as an offset by Developed Country Parties to fulfill their
commitment for their emission reductions.
Additional Mitigation actions in Developing Country
Parties which can generate credits, and can be used as an
3. Credited NAMAs offset by Developed Country Parties to fulfill their
emission reductions commitment through carbon market
or non-market instruments. For instances: (i) Carbon
market, such as sectoral crediting, (ii) Non market
instrument, such as bilateral arragement.
 NATIONALLY APPROPRIATE MITIGATION
ACTIONS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
[ Indonesia Case ]

Category Remarks

1. Unilateral NAMAs Voluntarily, Self financing: 26 % from the National

Baseline (Letter 30 January 2010).
2. Supported NAMAs Can be increased up to 41% with International Support
(G20 Meeting in Pittsburgh, 2009).
Additional National Mitigation actions which can
generate credits, and can be used as an offset by
3. Credited NAMAs Developed Country Parties to fulfill their emission
(These potential reductions commitment through carbon market or non-
possibility need to
be confirmed
market instruments. For instances: (i) Carbon market,
further) such as sectoral crediting, (ii) Non market instrument,
such as bilateral arragement.
 Multi Sectoral Baseline
Unilateral
NAMAs

[GHG Emissions]
26 %
41 %

Credited NAMAs
Supported
NAMAs
Future Path of
GHG Emissions

T0 T1 Tn 2020 [Tahun]

National integrated process in meeting the national

emission reduction target based on cost effectiveness.
 Future Path of GHG Emissions Reduction
(Multi Sectoral Mitigation Actions)

Multi Sectoral Least Cost

Past Trend and Baseline Principle
Current State of
GHG Emissions

GHG Emissions
 Sector # 1
 Sector # 2
 Sector # 3
 Sector # 4
 Sector # --
 Sector # n

Future Path Mitigation Actions

of GHG Emissions
of Each Sectors

T0 T1 Tn [T i m e]

National integrated process in meeting the national

emission reduction target based on cost effectiveness.
 CO2 Sources, Geological Potential Storage
Locations & Estimated Avoided Costs*)
Geological Pipeline Estimated
CO2
Potential Distance Avoided Cost
Sources
Storage Location (Km) (US$/tCO2)
62.1
Indramayu South Sumatra
(versus 1000 MW
1000 MW region 655
plant without
Steam Coal Power Plant (onshore)
capture)
Muara Tawar 71.4
North Jawa sea
750 MW 15 (versus NGCC
(offshore)
NGCC Power Plant without capture)
56.2
Bangko Tengah South Sumatra
(versus 600 MW
600 MW region 60
plant without
Steam Coal Power Plant (onshore)
capture)
76.3
Muara Jawa East Kalimantan
(versus 100 MW
100 MW region 60
plant without
Steam Coal Power Plant (onshore)
capture)
Subang Field 10.7
North Jawa sea
Natural Gas Processing 79.7 (cost of
(offshore)
Plant compressing)
*) Study: “Understanding CCS Potential in Indonesia”, November 2009.
 Cost of Various Components of a CCS System
CCS System Components Cost Range Remarks
From a coal or gas 15 – 75 US$/tCO2 Net costs of captured CO2 compared to the
fired power plant net captured same plant without capture
From hydrogen &
ammonia 5 – 55 US$/tCO2 Applies to high-purity sources requiring
Capture
production or gas net captured simple drying and compression.
processing
From other 25 – 115 US$/tCO2 Range reflects use of a number of different
industrial sources net captured technologies and fuels.
Per 250 km pipeline or shipping for mass
1 – 8 US$/tCO2
Transportation Via pipeline or ship flow rates of 5 (high end) to 40 (low end)
transported
MtCO2/yr.
Geological 0.5 – 8 US$/tCO2 Excluding potential revenues from EOR or
storage* net injected Enhanced Coal Bed Methane (ECBM).
Geological storage: This covers pre-injection, injection, and
0.1 – 0.3 US$/tCO2
monitoring & post injection monitoring, and depends on
Storage injected
verification the regulatory requirements.
Including offshore transportation of
5 – 30 US$/tCO2
Ocean storage 100-500 km, excluding monitoring and
net injected
verification.
* Over the long-term, there may be additional costs for remediation and liabilities; Source: Carbon Dioxide
Capture and Storage, Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary, IPCC, 2006.
 CCS PROPOSITION – WHOLE CHAIN ONLY
Country (Project) Capture Store Start Year Size
Technology
USA (Mountaineer, AEP) Post-combustion Aquifer 2008 0.1 Mt/yr
USA (Shadyside) Post-combustion Aquifer 2008 0.3 Mt/yr
France (Lacq) Oxyfuel EOR 2008 0.08 Mt/yr
Germany (Schwarze Pumpe) Oxyfuel Aquifer 2008 0.25-2 Mt/yr
China (Green-Gen)* Pre-combustion EOR 2009/15 1.5-2.7 Mt/yr
Australia (Callide) Oxyfuel Aquifer 2010 0.05 Mt/yr
USA (Oologah) Post-combustion EOR 2011 1.5 Mt/yr
Australia (Zero-Gen)* Pre-combustion Aquifer 2011/12 0.4 Mt/yr
Norway (Mongstad)* Post-combustion Aquifer 2011/14 0.1-1.5 Mt/yr
Abu Dabi (Masdar)* Pre-combustion EOR 2012 1.8 Mt/yr
USA (Sugar Land) Post-combustion EOR 2012 0.7-1 Mt/yr
USA (North East, AEP) Post-combustion Aquifer 2012 1.5 Mt/yr
Denmark (Vattenfall) Post-combustion Aquifer 2013 1.8 Mt/yr
UK* Post-combustion Aquifer or EOR 2014/19 2.0 Mt/yr
Canada (Boundary Dam)* Post-combustion EOR 2015 0.4 Mt/yr

*) = State Funds
 First Million-ton Coal-carbon Capture Device was Officially
Put into Operation in China
The first Million-ton CO2 capture device designed for coal-fired power plant in china was put into
operation in Chongqing Hechuan. China Power Investment Group announced on January 21, 2010.
It can capture 10000 tons of high purity CO2 from 50 million cubic meters of flue gas generated by
coal-flue power plants as expected. Quanda environmental protection engineering company,
owned by China Power Investment Group, designed the device which is one of the few Million-ton
CO2 capture devices in the world with international leading technology and advantages including
low cost, broad flue gas adaptability, high CO2 capture rate and low solvent consumption.

Huaneng Group's First Carbon Capture Demo Project

Achieves Commercial Run
China's first carbon capture demonstration project launched by China Huaneng Group has
captured nearly 4,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide after one year operation, and all the captured
carbon dioxide has been adopted for commercial use. The demonstration project is located in
Huaneng Beijing thermal power plant, which involved a total investment of 21 million yuan in
equipment, with annual capacity of about 3,000 tonnes, and recovery rate of 85 percent. So far, it
has formed a daily carbon capturing capacity of 12 tonnes, and has been put into commercial
usage. All the captured carbon dioxide is sold at 500 yuan/tonne while its operation cost is only
300 yuan/tonne. According to Huaneng, the production cost of food-grade carbon dioxide made
from the captured carbon is under 420 yuan/tonne, far less than the current market price of 800-
1200 yuan/tonne. China Huaneng Group is the parent company of Huaneng Power International,
Inc. (Source: Xinhua News Agency)
 ETP 2010

Excerpt as a Reference for Discussion only

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in Clean
Development Mechanism (CCS in CDM)

Cancun Beach, 8 December 2010

 SUBMISSION BY INDONESIA TO UNFCCC
Views on the Inclusion of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in
Geological Formations (CCS) in CDM

 Indonesia recognizes the potential of CCS as one of the key

options to mitigate GHG emissions at a large scale.
 Deployment of CCS in both developed and developing countries is
important in efforts to avoid the adverse impacts of climate
change.
 CCS is a particularly major GHG mitigation option for developing
countries whose economies are dependent on fossil fuels.
 Recognizing that CCS is high cost measure, project based
mechanism is the most appropriate means to support the finance
of CCS projects in developing countries through provision of
incentives.
 Indonesia supports the principle of having CCS projects as activity
under the CDM with the objectives to establish CCS projects in
due course and in the safest possible manner.

Full submission can be accessed through http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/sbsta/eng/misc02.pdf

Document number FCCC/SBSTA/2010/MISC.2
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage
in Geological Formations as Clean
Development Mechanism Project
Activities - FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.1
(Draft conclusions proposed by the Chair)
1. The SBSTA took note of the views submitted by Parties,
including those submitted in response to previous requests for
submissions on this agenda item and those expressed during the
session, on concerns related to the following outstanding issues,
inter alia:
a) Non-permanence, including long-term permanence;
b) Measuring, reporting and verification;
c) Environmental impacts;
d) Project activity boundaries;
e) International law;
f) Liability;
g) The potential for perverse outcomes;
h) Safety;
i) Insurance coverage and compensation for damages caused
due to seepage or leakage.
 KEY IMPORTANT ITEMS
SITE SELECTION
Non-permanence and long-term permanence, criteria
MEASURING, MONITORING & VERIFICATION
GHG accounting options during the injection, post-injection phase and long-term
stewardship, methodology and plan
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Analysed potential environmental impacts, site specific risks assessment, CO2 stream,
criteria
PROJECT ACTIVITY BOUNDARIES
Identification and criteria for evaluation of physical boundary
RISK and SAFETY ASSESSMENT
Deployment of CCS in geological formation, proposal mitigation actions related to
emissions from injection points, from above-ground and underground installations
and reservoirs, seepage, etc
LIABILITY
Identification short, medium, and long-term liable entities, rules and procedures
INSURANCE COVERAGE AND COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES
CAUSED DUE TO SEEPAGE OR LEAKAGE
 Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage in
Geological Formations as Clean Development
Mechanism Project Activities -
FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.1
(Draft conclusions proposed by the Chair)
Annex

Paragraph 1
[Option 1: Decides that carbon dioxide capture and storage in
geological formations is eligible as project activities under the clean
development mechanism, provided that the issues identified in
decision 2/CMP.5, paragraph 29, are addressed and resolved in
satisfactory manner trough, inter alia, the actions identified in
paragraph 2 (a-n) below;

Option 2: Decides that carbon dioxide capture and storage in

geological formations is not eligible as project activities under the
clean development mechanism.]
 Issues Identified – Annex FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.11

SITE SELECTION

a) Careful selection of the storage site for CO2 capture and storage in
geological formations is key in addressing issues related to
permanence of storage, liability, the international legal framework
and environmental impacts, including transboundary impacts;
b) Any consideration of CO2 capture and storage in geological
formations shall be based on stringent and robust criteria for the
selection of the storage site;
 Issues Identified – Annex FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.11

MONITORING - METHODOLOGY & PLAN

c) Stringent monitoring plans shall be in place in order to ensure the

environmental integrity of of CO2 capture and storage in geological
formations;
d) Further consideration is required as regards the suitability of the
use of modeling, as opposed to direct monitoring, in meeting the
strigency requirements of such monitoring plans, in particular
taking into account the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GHG
Inventories;
 Issues Identified – Annex FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.11

PROJECT BOUNDARY

e) The boundaries of of CO2 capture and storage in geological

formations shall include all above-ground and underground
installations and storage sites,as well as all potential sources of
CO2 that can be released into atmosphere, involved in the capture,
treatment, transportation, injection and storage of carbon dioxide;
f) The boundaries referred to in para (e) above shall be clearly
identified and contained within the borders of a single country;
g) Any release of CO2 from the boundaries referred to in para (e)
above must accounted for in the monitoring plans;
h) Any increase in energy use related to the deployment of CO2
capture and storage in geological formations shall be accounted
for in the monitoring plans;
 Issues Identified – Annex FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.11

RISK & SAFETY ASSESSMENT

i) A through risk and safety assessment shall be required for the
deployment of CO2 capture and storage in geological formations;
j) The risk and safety assessment referred to in para (i) above shall
include, inter alia, the assessment of risk and proposal of
mitigation actions related to emissions from injection points,
emissions from above-ground and underground installations and
reservoirs, seepage, lateral flows, migrating plumes, massive and
catastrophic release of stored CO2, and impacts on human health
and ecosystems;
k) The result of the risk and safety assessment referred to in para (i)
above shall be considered when assessing the technical viability
of CO2 capture and storage in geological formations;
 Issues Identified – Annex FCCC/SBSTA/2010/L.11

LIABILITY
(Short, Medium, and Long-term)

l) Short, medium and long-term liability provisions, including the

clear identification of liable entities, shall be defined prior to the
consideration of CO2 capture and storage in geological formations;
m) Adequate provisions for restoration of any damage ecosystems
and full compensation of impacted communities in the event of
release of CO2 from the deployment of CO2 capture and storage in
geological formations must be set up prior to any deployment of
related activities;
n) In view of the environmental risk involved, storage of CO2 in water
columns shall not be considered as a viable option for CO2 capture
and storage.
 CCS Progress Path 2009-2010

COP15/CMP5 SBSTA 32 COP16/CMP6

Copenhagen, Bonn, Germany Cancun, Mexico,
7-18 December 2009 31 May-9 June 2010 30 Nov-11 December 2010

Decision 2/CMP.5 – Paragraph 29 Decision -/CMP.6 – Paragraph 1

Recognizes the importance of carbon
dioxide capture and storage in geological
formations as a possible mitigation
technology, bearing in mind the concerns
related to the following outstanding issues,
inter alia: (a) Non-permanence, including
long-term permanence; (b) Measuring,
reporting and verification; (c) Environmental
impacts; (d) Project activity boundaries; (e)
International law; (f) Liability; (g) The
potential for perverse outcomes; (h) Safety;
(i) Insurance coverage and compensation for
damages caused due to seepage or leakage.
Decides that carbon dioxide capture
and storage in geological formations is
eligible as project activities under the
clean development mechanism,
provided that the issues identified in
decision 2/CMP.5, paragraph 29, are
addressed and resolved in satisfactory
manner.
See: Paragraphs 2 and 3.
“Eligible as project activities
under the clean development
mechanism, or Not Eligible”
 Decision -/CMP.6
Paragraph 2
Request the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice at
its thirty-fifth session, to elaborate modalities and procedures for the
inclusion of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological
formations as project activities under the clean development
mechanism, with a view to recommending a decision to the
Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the
Kyoto Protocol at its seventh session;

Paragraph 3
Decides that the modalities and procedures referred to in paragraph 2
above shall address the following issues:
a) The selection of the storage site for carbon dioxide capture and
storage in geological formations shall be based on stringent and
robust criteria in order to seek to ensure the long-term
permanence of the storage of carbon dioxide and the long-term
integrity of the storage site;
 Decision -/CMP.6
b) Stringent monitoring plans shall be in place and be applied during
and beyond the crediting period in order to reduce the risk to the
environmental integrity of carbon dioxide capture and storage in
geological formations;
c) Further consideration is required as regards the sustainability of the
use of modeling, taking into account the scientific uncertainties
surrounding existing models, in meeting the stringent requirements
of such monitoring plans, in particular taking into account the 2006
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories;
d) The criteria for the site selection and monitoring plans shall be
decided upon by the Conference of the Parties serving as the
meeting of the Parties to Kyoto Protocol and may draw upon
relevant guideline by international bodies, such as the 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories;
 Decision -/CMP.6
e) The boundaries of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations
shall include all above-ground and underground installations and storage sites,
as well as all potential sources of carbon dioxide that can be released into the
atmosphere, involved in the capture, treatment, transportation, injection and
storage of carbon dioxide, and any potential migratory pathways of the carbon
dioxide plume, including a pathway resulting from dissolution of the carbon
dioxide in underground water;
f) The boundaries referred to in paragraph 3 (e) above shall be clearly identified;
g) Any release of carbon dioxide from the boundaries referred to in paragraph 3
(e) above must be measured and accounted for in the monitoring plans and
the reservoir pressure shall be continuously measured and these data must be
independently verifiable;
h) The appropriateness of the data development of transboundary carbon
dioxide capture and storage project activities in geological formations and
their implications shall be addressed;
i) Any project emissions associated with the deployment of carbon dioxide
capture and storage in geological formations shall be accounted for as project
or leakage emissions and shall be included in the monitoring plans, including
an ex-ante estimation of project emissions;
 Decision -/CMP.6
j) A thorough risk and safety assessment using a methodology specified in
the modalities and procedures, as well as a comprehensive socio-
environmental impacts assessment, shall be undertaken by independent
entity(ies) prior to the deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage
in geological formations;
k) The risk and safety assessment referred to in paragraph 3 j) above shall
include, inter alia, the assessment of risk and proposal of mitigation
actions related to emissions from injection points, emissions from above-
ground and underground installations and reservoirs, seepage, lateral
flows, migrating plumes, including carbon dioxide dissolved in aqueous
medium migrating outside the project boundary, massive and catastrophic
release of stored carbon dioxide, and impacts on human health and
ecosystems, as well as an assessment of the consequences of such a
release for the climate;
l) The results of the risk and safety assessment, as well as the socio-
environmental impacts assessment, referred to in paragraph 3 (j) and (k)
above shall be considered when assessing the technical and environmental
viability of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations;
 Decision -/CMP.6
m) Short-, medium-, and long-term liability for potential physical leakage
of seepage of stored carbon dioxide, potential induced seismicity or
geological instability or any other potential damage to the
environment, property or public health attributable to the clean
development mechanism project activity during and beyond the
crediting period, including the clear identification of liable entities,
shall:

(i) Be defined prior to the approval of carbon dioxide capture

and storage in geological formations as clean development
mechanism project activities;

(ii) Be applied during and beyond the crediting period;

(iii) Be consistent with the Kyoto Protocol;

 Decision -/CMP.6
n) When determining the liability provisions referred to in paragraph 3 (m) above, the
following issues shall be considered:
i. A means of redress for Parties, communities, private-sector entities and
individuals affected by the release of stored carbon dioxide from carbon
dioxide capture and storage project activities under the clean development
mechanism;
ii. Provisions to allocate liability among entities that share the same reservoir,
including if disagreements arise;
iii. Possible transfer of liability at the end of the crediting period or at any
other time;
iv. State liability, recognizing the need to afford redress taking into account the
longevity of liabilities surrounding potential physical leakage or seepage of
stored carbon dioxide, potential induced seismicity or geological instability
or any other potential damage to the environment, property or public
health attributable to the clean development mechanism project activity
during and beyond the crediting period;
o) Adequate provision for restoration of damage ecosystems and full compensation
for affected communities in the event of a release of carbon dioxide from the
deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage in geological formations must
be established prior to any deployment of related activities;
 KOMITE NASIONAL INDONESIA

To promote the
sustainable supply
and use of energy for
the greatest benefit
of all people.
www.worldenergy.org

Thank you